Cornell University Sues Hewlett Packard

bmc writes: "Haven't seen this on any of the big news sites, but the local paper is reporting that Cornell is suing HP for patent infringement. The alleged infringement covers HP processors manufactured from 1995 to the present. How common is it for big universities to get involved in lawsuits like this?"

Comments

Hmmm....

[NiftyNews]

The big question is: was student code involved? :)

Re:Hmmm....

[digitalunity]

I hope not. This is going to be a media wreck if they lose. Of course, I can't blame them. Major universities have always attempted to subsidize tuition by licensing patents.

I hope they work out a deal. I'd really hate to see either party lose this case.

Re:Hmmm....

[CTho9305]

I think you should change your sig to "have to look up but dont". Anyone who actually looks the stuff up most likely cares enough to moderate well.

Re:Hmmm....

[hotchai]

C'mon .. I am sure student work is involved (code or otherwise). Seriously, how many parofessors/staff do you think actually "write" code? More often than not, it some over-worked, under-paid grad student who does the work (though increasingly undergrads are also making serious contributions).

BTW, what difference does it make if student code is invloved or not? At most universities the I.P. belongs to the university, not to the student/professor.

heh

[Zephy]

IMHO, Academic institutions shouldn't get themselves involved in cases like these. If they lose then the students will end up paying the price with higher fees/less equipment. I hope they've got a strong case

Re:heh

[adadun]

On the other hand, if they win the students might benefit from it with lower fees/more equipment.

Re:heh

[nzhavok]

So your saying that acdemic institutions shouldn't have any way of protecting their IP. Any hard work put in by the people there, the money donated by the institution, businesses and grants should count for nothing if a "company" wants to use the idea.

grow up

Re:heh

[Pathetic Coward]

On the other hand, if they win the students might benefit from it with lower fees/more equipment.

Obviously not a Cornell student.

Re:heh

[Steve Cowan]

The idea of a university research foundation citing damages of $100M (that's 100 000 000!) is preposterous.

My problems with this: first, how does the university stand to gain from this concept? Isn't the primary purpose of a research foundation to research, rather than own? Just how would they have ever made that kind of money from this invention? Was Cornell planning on getting into the processor business?

Second, intellectual property is one thing, but if a concept is left on snooze for years and years (1989?), and gets invented again (by HP), why should the existence of an obscure, neglected, unapplied patent stand in the way of technology?

This is of course assuming that HP is actually infringing upon any patent.

I also believe the US patent office has in the past been a little quick to hand out technology patents anyway. A classic example of this is amazon.com's patent on one-click shopping.

Processors evolve and advance constantly. In this case the patent seems to pertain to the processor being able to aribtrarily choose which instructions to process next. But is this not just a necessary step in the evolution of processors? Isn't this akin to a programmer trying to patent loops, or conditional statements?

Re:heh

[xonker]

Unlikely. They'll just pay the President of the College a little more for "having the initiative" to sue HP. Students rarely benefit from any windfall donations or grants given to colleges.

Re:heh

[Speare]

So your[sic] saying that acdemic[sic] institutions shouldn't have any way of protecting their IP. Any hard work put in by the people there, the money donated by the institution, businesses and grants should count for nothing if a "company" wants to use the idea.

Yes, and especially for state-funded schools. It's not just one company who should benefit either, but any and all companies who want to benefit from the ideas generated through university research.

Salon has an article on just this sort of thing, where schools are turning their research into Big Business instead of Big Teaching.

My favorite quote: Larry Smarr, a professor of computer science at U.C. San Diego, said, "I don't think universities should be in the moneymaking business. They ought to be in the changing-the-world business, and open source is a great vehicle for changing the world."

The alumni donate money to the school, not to maximize their investment in profits, but to maximize the impact of learning and teaching. Pure Research is not Applied Research. Pure Research is setting out a roadmap where none existed before, and what good is a roadmap if the society which paid for it cannot use it?

Re:heh

[sketerpot]

Salon has an article on just this sort of thing, where schools are turning their research into Big Business instead of Big Teaching.

By the way, have you seen the advertisements for a college, I think it was called "Stevens" or something like that, that touted the way people not only created technology, but brought it to the market? It sounds like the sort of crazy place you're talking about.

You're right. Colleges are for learning, not for making the college money.

Re:heh

[Lars T.]

So you are saying that "especially [...] state-funded schools" should basically give away their research to Big Business? Hey, that's giving tax money to Big Business.

Re:heh

[mikethegeek]

"My favorite quote: Larry Smarr, a professor of computer science at U.C. San Diego, said, "I don't think universities should be in the moneymaking business. They ought to be in the changing-the-world business, and open source is a great vehicle for changing the world."

Wrong. Universities should be in the TEACHING business, not the "change the world" business.

This is one thing that has gone VERY wrong with academia in the past 30 years. Instead of teaching facts, and critical thinking skills, schools, colleges, universities by and large teach WHAT to think.

If a university sets out to "change the world", who's ideas and what world is the blueprint? I think you see my point.

I believe that taxpayer funded educational institutions should be required to release ALL their research into the public domain. After all, as taxpayers, we're ALL helping to subsidize it in some way.

There should be no restriction on who can use their research, be it fortune 500 or mom and pop shop. The purpose of a university is to educate students, and to improve knowledge through research. That knowledge should be public domain.

Otherwise, universities are taxpayer funded and subsidized R&D departments producing proprietary, corporate only IP.

In the corporate world, IP is owned by that which funds the institution (the business), not the inventor. The same principle should apply to public universities. I don't feel that a university has any more right to exclusive rights to profit from it's IP than the Joe Schmo who invents something in an IBM lab does.

Re:heh

[Lars T.]

No, that would be called "Government subsidizing Big Business, while giving them tax cuts to boot". It's time BB grows up, instead of depending on government wellfare.

Re:heh

[mikethegeek]

" So you are saying that "especially [...] state-funded schools" should basically give away their research to Big Business? Hey, that's giving tax money to Big Business."

No, state funded schools should have to give away their research to TAXPAYERS. Last time I checked big business also pays taxes.

If a state funded school doesn't like that, well the choice is simple. Give up all taxpayer subsidy and exist as a privately funded, taxpaying institution. Just like any corporation's R&D department is.

Don't take from the taxpayer with one hand, and with the other deny them the return on their investment.

Re:heh

[limited]

Yes, and especially for state-funded schools

Just for correctness, the college in question is not state-funded. Cornell is broken up into several colleges, three of which are state funded (significantly lower tuition). The College of Engineering however, is a private institution and has the typical 36k tuition bill.

Re:heh

[mikethegeek]

"Just for correctness, the college in question is not state-funded. Cornell is broken up into several colleges, three of which are state funded (significantly lower tuition). The College of Engineering however, is a private institution and has the typical 36k tuition bill."

That makes no difference. If the taxpayers fund part of it, they are helping to fund all of it.

Not only that, but they are funding it in the fact that their non-"public" colleges are tax exempt.

Re:heh

[KjetilK]

This is one thing that has gone VERY wrong with academia in the past 30 years. Instead of teaching facts, and critical thinking skills, schools, colleges, universities by and large teach WHAT to think.

I agree about that. However, teaching critical thinking is all about changing the world, so I agree about the original quote as well, and I think there is no conflict at all with teaching critical thinking and being in the changing-the-world business. On the contrary, being in the changing-the-world business means teaching critical thinking.

Actually, I think you (and I, I think.... :-) ) would agree very much with the basic points of the person cited.

Re:heh

[FlowerPotAdmin]

I'd have to agree with you there. Methinks if we win, we'll just get even more involved in proprietary technology...

Re:heh

[Lars T.]

But the only taxpayers who can do anything with the research is Big Business. Even if making it marketable were cheap enough for small companies, BB would just rush over them with marketforce. Yes, BB pays taxes, but they not only keep paying less and less, they also get "something" already, like graduates from the tax funded universities and infrastructure.

Re:heh

[FlowerPotAdmin]

This is a difficult situation precisely because Cornell held onto its patent for so long (I assume) without letting others make use of the technology. One might say that Cornell should forget the whole lawsuit business and make the technology free for anyone's use, but then that gives HP a six-year head start, which doesn't really seem fair. Obviously, the best situation would have been for Cornell to allow the technology to be freely used from the beginning, but *given what has already occured*, I don't think there's any more appropriate option.

But is this not just a necessary step in the evolution of processors?

Yes and no. Out of order execution is certainly a useful technique, but this kind of thing could conceivably be implemented in several different ways. The patent just protects one class of implementation. (This still seems general enough to me that it *should* not be patented, but I think it *can*.)

Re:heh

[Steveosh]

Obviously you don't go to Cornell. It is inconceivable that they could possibly find another way to get money from students. They milk us for every penny we're worth.

Re:heh

[Dwonis]

You'd be amazed how many people think like this. For a recent example, look the latest anti-cloning arguments. They basically amount to the idea that "current cloning technology is imperfect, so research should be forbidden."

Re:heh

[quinto2000]

Wrong. Big businesses, for the most part, don't pay taxes. Check out Public Citizen. It's small businesses and the middle class who pay taxes. The wealthy get tax breaks since they write the tax codes.

Re:heh

[FuzzyFurB]

I disagree with you 100%. I happen to be a Cornell student, in the College of Arts and Sciences. If you did your research, you'd know that only certain colleges in Cornell are public (aka Industrial and Labor Relations, Agriculture, etc), while the majority of the colleges, INCLUDING THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, are PRIVATE schools. The now ECE deparment (electrical engineering which is now called electrical and computer engineering) has always been located in the Engineering school, which is private.

Second, I've met in the past with some of Cornell's lawyers over discussions regarding Dragon Day. It was there I learned that Cornell spends most of it's time defending itself against stupid little lawsuits, and only gets into one intensionally if either a.) it has a LOT to lose if it doesn't or b.) it has a REALLY good case. Cornell doesn't like to lose, so going for this means they must have a very good case, or their lawers certainly believe they do.

Re:heh

[ipfwadm]

Why should they not be tax exempt? The school is a not-for-profit institution. They take the money they make from patent licensing and subsidize tuition, or fund more research. And does the government not receiving tax dollars amount to the taxpayer funding the college? Finally, I would contend your statement about "If the taxpayers fund part of it, they are helping to fund all of it." I have no idea of the laws involved, but I imagine there are strict regulations as to what the university can use that money for.

Re:heh

[symbolic]

This is one thing that has gone VERY wrong with academia in the past 30 years. Instead of teaching facts, and critical thinking skills, schools, colleges, universities by and large teach WHAT to think.

And they don't even do that any more, since most of the time, those with the real knowledge (the professors) are off on some research project, leaving the actual "teaching" to underlings. College has become a very expensive formality - especially when it involves the better-known schools. It's a catch-22- students believe that they have to fork out buttloads of money in order to get a good education, and good educational credentials (whether or not one actually learns anything) are necessary for a good job. What a racket.

Re:heh

[KinCross]

It should be noted that the College of Engineering at Cornell University is *not* state-funded. It is a privately endowed college. If you want the state-funded stuff, go over to the Ag school.

Re:heh

[esullender]

Torng was a professor in the College of Engineering, which is one of the private colleges at Cornell. So the argument of "especially for state-funded schools" is moot in this case.

Raising Money

[Larkfellow]

could lead to a request for damages in excess of $100 million

Is this Cornell's way of raising money? Well, I suppose it's a little easier than baking 100 million muffins and cookies.

But what interests me is exactly what type of "damages" were actually done. And why wait 6 years before saying anything? Maybe it just took them that long to get inside the box itself. Anywho, enough insulting. It just seems to me that it would be rather difficult to prove that 1) The idea was taken in the first place and 2) That it really caused $100Million in damages, since Cornell seems as strong to me now as it did 10 years ago.

Please excuse the rambling, it's almost 7 in the morning and I'm still at work from yesterday, what a long night....

Re:Raising Money

[aka-ed]

According to the article, Professor H.C. Torng, who taught at Cornell's School of Electrical and Computer Engineering from 1960 to 1999, spent most of his career working on the concept. That means over twenty years. If you don't think usurping a guy's life work results in "damages," perhaps you should try to grow a soul. Then there's Cornell's expenses for underwriting his research, I think Cornell Profs are paid rather well. The value of an unenforced patent is zero, while an enforced one very well can be worth $100 million.

"Damages" doesn't necessarily mean Cornell lost funding in a visible manner, just that they lost value in the particular patent.

As for what they need to prove, they don't need to prove the patent was taken (as in a copyright case), only that it was violated, and that can be demonstrated from the code.

Re:Raising Money

[flacco]

"I must, and yet I cannot. How do you calculate that? Where do 'must' and 'cannot' meet on the graph?"

At the liquor store.

Re:Raising Money

[aka-ed]

I'm sure you're right. If I had considered I would have not stated they were "well-paid," but that, as they call this Torng's life work, that Cornell sees it as quite a sum they invested over time.

Re:Raising Money

[tomstdenis]

" If you don't think usurping a guy's life work results in "damages," perhaps you should try to grow a soul. "

Did the professor get paid during his stay? I can't imagine him on pogey for 20 years while working *for* the university.

I agree that HP should credit him if they used his ideas, but as to the "usurping" his life work I don't really see that. He was rewarded for his work and probably generously.

Re:Raising Money

[aka-ed]

So what's your point? I was just pointing out that damages had been done. Whether the damages were to a prof who spent 20 years working on an idea, or to Cornell who paid him (you say generously), it's still damages, which was my point. Whether stolen from Cornell or the Prof, it's still a life's work stolen.

In addition, these arrangements invariably involve a royalty payment to the patent author by the patent owner. So the Prof is still egtting shafted.

Re:Raising Money

[tomstdenis]

First off I agree that if HP stole the idea they should own up to it.

I just don't see the connection to the prof getting burned. Sure its not nice, but he gets paid none-the-less. Its not like he wasn't rewarded for his work.

Besides, aren't schools there to teach? Another poster brought up a good point. What if a student learned of the idea from class and tried to use it. Should he be barred by the patent [that indirectly he paid to develop]?

Tom

this is gonna be fun

[atari2600]

Cornell is not of those also ran schools - its among the best and the intellectuals do know what they were getting into. It doesnt matter if student code is involved (which actually would be the case) - what matters is how the technology was being licensed and why it took so long for Cornell to realise that HP was "stealing" the work done at Cornell. HP can always claim that the work was done independently at HP research and this is a coincidence...you know shit happens. Also the way the patents are being given out, i am going to patent the way i make my tea and coffee, well the way i set my computer (cabinet under the table) and how i drink diet pepsi while keying with one hand. Not so hard for HP to pull out such a patent from its magic hat. Aww cmon guys - )(*&@#+)&$)+!*&@#(&!_@ :) '2 + 2 = 4 for any freaking value of 2>0'

Re:this is gonna be fun

[yfarren]

OK, People, if you are going to talk about IP law, PLEASE LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT IT. NO, HP can't "claim that the work was done independently at HP research and this is a coincidence". Cornell is saying they have a patent on something. If I have a patent on something, YOU CANT DO IT. A patent is a limited government sponsored monopoly. I get a patent, EVEN IF YOU COME UP WITH THE SAME THING ON YOUR OWN, YOU CANT DO IT. This is to encourage people to publish their work early. Incidentally, if no-one else makes coffee the way you make it, or no-one else sets up their computer the way you do, OR if some other people do, but it is a big secret, then go ahead. Although you just screwed yourself by publicly disclosing what you do. Whoever modded this post up clearly knows as little about IP law as whoever posted it. Please people, dont Mod something you dont know anything about, and dont post anything you similarly know nothing about.

Re:this is gonna be fun

[Decimal]

Also the way the patents are being given out, i am going to patent the way i make my tea and coffee, well the way i set my computer (cabinet under the table) and how i drink diet pepsi while keying with one hand.

Um, trust me, there is *lots* of prior art for doing something else while typing with only one hand. Landfills across the world are chock full of gummed-up keyboards that attest to the fact...

Re:this is gonna be fun

[mpe]

If I have a patent on something, YOU CANT DO IT. A patent is a limited government sponsored monopoly. I get a patent, EVEN IF YOU COME UP WITH THE SAME THING ON YOUR OWN, YOU CANT DO IT.

In the latter situation there might be a case for arguing that the patent should never have been granted in the first place. Since parents shouldn't be granted for the "obvious", several independant people comming up with the same thing makes it look as though it is "obvious".

This is to encourage people to publish their work early.

IP laws, at least where this is happening, are intended as means to that end. Rather than ends in themselves.

Re:this is gonna be fun

[Nightlight3]

I get a patent, EVEN IF YOU COME UP WITH THE SAME THING ON YOUR OWN, YOU CANT DO IT.

He can do it if he can prove that he came up with his design before your idea was published.

Re:this is gonna be fun

[waveclaw]

Assuming we are talking U.S.A. I.P. Law and by extension all Berne Treaty signature countries):

However, in an interesting twist of ethics and morals, there are registered secrets ((trade secrets ) that are essentially the same thing as patents without the benefit to the general public (the military is not so restricted), except you can get sued something ugly for going public and trying to patent or use someone else's *secret* process no matter how original you though you were. Trying to prove you didn't get it from the owners of the *secret* technology is not very easy.

Considering how *new discovery* dependant Computer Science and its derived engineering disciplines are at this time, the ethical nature of I.P. and patenting are still under debate. Just look at the whole Open Source initiative: it almost tries to return the original meaning of copyright (protection of attribution) to the current twisted definition (protection of money). In both cases, the majority is hurt by the expansion of rights to the individual (i.e. corporation) whereas the individual only gets a small conjectured advantage (majority of patents are never actually implemented, just registered and defended (yet another source of income not derived from meaningful work)). Not a surprise for a system whose major originating proponent created such patents as the patent covering his *long arm* - a device that consists of a long pole with a grasping device at the end to help get books off tall shelves (even though such devices had been used for centuries by his contemporary farmers for occasional chores.)

"The fact that it works is immaterial,"

L. Ogborn.

Cornell's press release

[marnanel]

Here's Cornell's press release about it.

Re:Cornell's press release

[Enonu]

I liked the real ending even better!!!! :) :) !!

Representing Cornell in the legal proceedings are the Office of University Counsel, led by Mingle, and patent counsel from the Los Angeles and New York City offices of the firm of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood.

Copyright infringement?

[triptmind]

The article credits the 1989 patent to a prof. at Cornell Univ., a Professor Emeritus H.C. Torng. According to the article, he substantially increased efficient and speed of the processor. I question why this is only used in HPs or why HP is the sole defendent? However, this dispute seems as though the professor should be the party suing HP, not the university and the Research Foundation therein?
As the university is suing on an infringement dating back to 1995, one has to wonder what has caused the delay in action on Cornell's part, and what the statute of limitations is for this type of case? Well, hopefully all will be righted without harming the students at the well-renown university.

Re:Copyright infringement?

[heliocentric]

seems as though the professor should be the party suing HP, not the university

Eventhough the work was done by a person of whom you know the name, that does not mean that that person holds the rights to the patent/development/idea. In this case the person's employeer owns the rights and it is the responsibility of the owner (ie the one who stands to benefit monitarily) to defend what they own.

Re:Copyright infringement?

[triptmind]

Very true, however, if he created it without intention of granting/giving the university sole rights, it still is his. I do not have access to the actual patent, so I will take claim for my ignorance. Like I said however, it does seem as though it should be an action taken by the professor, unless of course this was part of an E.C. assignment or some university funded research, in that case...

Re:Copyright infringement?

[nzhavok]

I question why this is only used in HPs or why HP is the sole defendent?

Perhaps it is in a processor only made by HP, or in a company they have aquired. Or other companies using the chechnique have licensed it.

seems as though the professor should be the party suing HP

It's often the case that the University could end up owning the work he did, or at least a share of it. This is also true of some jobs, i.e. people develop something great in their own time, the company claims it.

Re:Copyright infringement?

[digitalunity]

Many engineers in R&D are forced to sign Anti-Competitive clauses that say they can design exclusively only for that employer. I know Darden Restarants, the largest casual dining company in the world, forces all managers to sign such clauses. It's big business... they have much to lose by their employee's helping the competition.

Re:Copyright infringement?

[aka-ed]

one has to wonder what has caused the delay in action on Cornell's part

If HP did steal it, do you suppose they bragged about it? If they didn't brag, how was Cornell supposed to know what HP's microcode contained? I rather suspect that after a few years of getting away with it, some overconfident engineer at HP spilled the beans on how they maxed their speed. Bet that guy's in trouble.

Re:Copyright infringement?

[yfarren]

OK. Again, people this is not underatted, it is overated. Whoever posted this just wanted to shoot off their mouth as fast as they could. Just look at the title. CORNELL ISNT TALKING ABOUT COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT PATENTS. If whoever wrote this post actually cared about his rights, he would look into them, just a little bit, and be aware that A PATENT IS NOT A COPYRIGHT. Patents and copyrights have totally diffrent terms, an defend their respective owners rights in completely diffrent ways. A copyright means that you can't copy what I did. It is assumed automatically upon creation of a new work. It need not be registered with anyone, anywhere (although you lose some rights if it isnt). If you something I cam up with, on your own, then I have no claims. The term of a copyright, today is 75 years past the authors death (thank Sonny Bono, It used to be 50) or straight up 75 (it might be 70, I forget) years if the copyright is owned by a corporation. The term of a patent, is, in general, 17 years from the date of issue of the patent. A patent is a limited monopoly. It must be registered, which means it has to be deemed new, non-obvious, and useful. It has to be published. That means you have to fully disclose how to do the thing you are claiming a monopoly on. In exchange for fully disclosing your idea, you get a limited monopoly. If you dont fully disclose your idea, and I can prove it, your patent is invalid. If you get a patent, a limited monopoly, anyone doing the thing covered by your patent, during those 17 years has to pay you licensing fees. If I inform you that you are violating my patent, and you dont stop, then you have to pay me triple damages from the point in time when I informed you that you are in violation of my patent. What caused the delay in action on Cornells part DOESNT MATTER. They are stilled owed (if, in fact HP is violationg their patent) licensing fees, because they still have the limited govenrment sponsored monopoly.

Re:Copyright infringement?

[AlphaCone]

What I don't understand is this: If the patent was awarded in 1989, when was it applied for? If HP was truly using this method in 1955, and the patent was applied for (by someone other then HP) afterwards, the patent is invalid. While the patent is based on the first filer, it is supposed to disclose all prior art. If HP had been using this method before the patent was applied for, Cornell will lose.

I knew this was coming...

[keepper]

I was a student in one of Thorng's EE classes,
EE231.. and AFAIK.. He mentioned this in 1997,
when i took his class.

Thorng invented/pioneered OOOE ( out of order
execution)... He mentioned that he had found out about certain infrindgement by a company, when
a student of his came to visit him, and casually mentioned that they were using this in their processors.

Funny how the world goes... 'Tis a small world after all'

PS: Thorng is a brilliant man.. but IMHO.. he is
not such a great professor, at least for EE231 :-D

Re:I knew this was coming...

[anonymous loser]

Thorng invented/pioneered OOOE ( out of order execution)

NOTE: this is a cut+paste from my reply to another post somewhere else. I just wanted to set the record straight. BTW it's typically abbreviated OOE (the "of" doesn't get a letter).

Err no he didn't. Tomasulo invented the way we do OOE many, many years before there were "3 billion fucking transistors" on a processor (which is still a slight exaggeration even by today's standards). The first machine to employ OOE was the IBM 360/91. Here are some pictures of the first (that I know of) 360/91 in operation in 1968 at NASA. Even though the machine was (by 1968's standards) blazingly fast, the 360/91 failed miserably and only a few were actually produced. The reason this machine failed was because it was incapable of handling interrupts properly. The 360/91 only supported imprecise interrupts, which meant that instructions causing the interrupt as well as subsequent instructions could continue to execute if they were already in the pipeline. This is generally not a Good Thing(tm).

I don't know where all of the Cornell students seem to get the impression that Torng invented OOE. Hopefully this is not from Torng himself, as anyone who studies modern processor design can tell you the first thing you learn about with OOE is the Tomaluso algorithm, which although it was invented over 30 years ago is still used in modern processors largely unchanged from the original design. This is not to say that Torng had no role. He did in fact substantially facilitate OOE, by devising a system to allow mutliple instructions to issue simultaneously (as his patent claims). Torng himself pays homage to Tomasulo in the patent, referencing his paper from 1967.

Re:I knew this was coming...

[ksavage]

Torng was my EE advisor from 1993-96.
His class Intro to Digital Systems (EE230)
had a profound impact on me, as it was the
impetus that launched a career designing
microprocessors. Without doubt he was one of the
most gifted professors at Cornell. Particularly,
interesting was his ability and resolve to
memorize the names and faces of every student in
his class of over 50 students. If you showed up
late to lecture he would call out your name as
you tip toed in.

In discussion with Thorng over an internship
at AMD working on the K5, he mentioned that he
was going to pursue his processor patents against
some of the big players. That was in 1995.

-Keith

Who has the right to litigate?

[loche451]

I think it is wonderful that Cornell is suing for damages in excess of 100 million based on the effort of one of it's professors that is no longer there.

At issue is a patent awarded in 1989 for a computer instruction processing technique created by Professor Emeritus H.C. Torng, who taught at Cornell's School of Electrical and Computer Engineering from 1960 to 1999.

"Professor Torng devoted much of his professional life to developing this highly innovative approach to high-speed processing," he said in a statement. "We cannot stand by while Hewlett-Packard profits from Professor Torng's contributions in this field in violation of Cornell's patent."

Is the patent-owner at all involved, is he even still at Cornell?

Sounds like another case of the lawyers being the ones to truely benefit.

Re:Who has the right to litigate?

[mESSDan]

Read what you wrote ;)

"Professor Torng devoted much of his professional life to developing this highly innovative approach to high-speed processing," he said in a statement. "We cannot stand by while Hewlett-Packard profits from Professor Torng's contributions in this field in violation of Cornell's patent."

Is the patent-owner at all involved, is he even still at Cornell?

You wrote that it's in violation of "Cornell's patent", not "Professor Torng's patent".

Universities often own the patents that professors and students develop while they are employed/working there. The University owns the patent, the professor emeritus gets a cut of whatever royalties they receive from licensing it.

Re:Who has the right to litigate?

[nyjx]

Very likely that Torng ceeded his rights to the University (or at least part of them). It is common practice in Unviersities that the University ends up being the (or one of the) patent holders.

Re:Who has the right to litigate?

[CSieber]

It seems obvious that Cornell has some involvement with both the patent and the professor or they wouldn't even have a case to sue. I'm betting that Cornell University is not going to sue anyone without an extremely strong case.

It seems probable to me that the professor is seeking Cornell's help because he needs the resources to effectively build and prosecute his case, and Cornell stands to benefit.

hmmm

[atari2600]

the question of course is - how good was the student? =P

Re:hmmm

[keepper]

Hey, i admitt, i was lazy.. :-D

But still doesn't take from the fact that he
didn't seem to enjoy teaching that class..

Plsus some other things that i rather not mention
since it would border on slander :-D hehe..

Re:hmmm

[stephanruby]

"If he doesn't enjoy teaching then perhaps he should try another line of work. "

Professors in major Universities are hired to do research first, lectures second. Students and prospective employers go to MIT because of their research reputation, not their teaching reputation.

Until you change what both the students and the prospective employers go after, Universities will never change.

Stephan

Some other details...

[keepper]

AFAIK, this patent is licenses by many other cpu companies, like intel for one.

Ways to make money

[Konster]

Things to note are:

Torng was named Intel's first Intel Academic Research Fellow. Not a big deal really. Cept maybe Intel has some back-door deals cooking or cooked with this patent.

This was patented in 1995...but the patent appears to cover every x86 CPU on the market.

The _Abstract is as follows:

"An instruction issuing mechanism for boosting throughput of processors with multiple functional units. A Dispatch Stack (DS) and a Precedence Count Memory (PCM) are employed which allow multiple instructions to be issued per machine cycle. Additionally, instructions do no have to be issued according to their order in the instruction stream, so that non-sequential instruction issuance occurs. In this system, multiple instruction issuance and non-sequential instruction issuance policies enhance the throughput of processors with multiple functional units."

Sounds like someone is trying to stave off future patent disputes...the like of which we have seen between Centaur/IDT and VIA...

The patent owner has the right to litigate

[adadun]

Is the patent-owner at all involved, is he even still at Cornell?

Since the patent is owned by the Cornell university, they are the ones who should defend it. In most cases, copyrights and patents are owned by the employer and not the employee.

Its called OOOE

[keepper]

Out of Order execution...

And yes, it's a patent that affects most cpu's

And the reason that it does? well, it's because
most cpu designers read his published works :-P

( i think he published the findings in 89,
and the first intel cpu to use it was the pentium )

Did Intel licence this patent as well?

[arn@lesto]

The patent appears to be valid in that Dr Torng while working for Cornell invented the technique for reordering instructions for multiple processing units. He did this in 1989 and assigned the IP rights to the university.

The university has been pursuing HP about licencing since HP came out with a processor using the algorithms/techniques he described.

Intel awarded Dr Torng a prize for advances in CPU design and acknowledged his leadership in this particular area.

Have Intel paid a licencing fee to Cornell? Intels latest processors also use this technique. If they have then HP will lose.

The original question still stands: How many universities pursue licencing patents like this? How much of the universities revenues come from this type of IP? Will this become the new standard for achademic success?

The Cisco story is quite interesting

[slashdot.org]

You can read up on it at this site for example.

Hmm, in fact this ran that article.

I don't think Stanford actually filed a lawsuit, but they where pretty close.

Re:The Cisco story is quite interesting

[digitalunity]

They didn't have to. They ended up settling, thank god.

Re:The Cisco story is quite interesting

[grimani]

i'm having trouble figuring out what you consider to be difficult vocabulary in this post...

was i supposed to look up 'settling'? 'god'?

sorry, i'm confused.

The Patent Itself

[Konster]

The patent number for this is: 4,807,115

Surf on over to US patent and Trademark Office and do a search with the patent number here:
Search uspto.gov by patent number

Or read it here if I don't bung up the the HTML.

Re:Forcing open Trade Secrets

[Yakman]

How do we know that microsoft isn't violating someone's copyright if we never see their source code!

Come on, man! If Microsoft were using other people's code that they weren't entitled to they'd tell us. Don't you trust Bill Gates or something? I mean, look at the guy's track record!

On another note, you CAN obtain the WinXP kernel sources, they're at www.kernel.org under the name "linux-2.4.x".

2 examples of prior art...

[quantus]

What about the IBM 360/91 from the late 60's? It used Tomasulo ( register renaming) for out of order execution...

As for multiple issue processors, how about the AP-120B ( floating point processor ) from the early 1980's...

I'm sure the above satisfies prior art, unless Cornell has some exotic twist on the implementation that they have received the patent for.

Re:2 examples of prior art...

[aka-ed]

Here's the abstract of the patent:
"An instruction issuing mechanism for boosting throughput of processors with multiple functional units. A Dispatch Stack (DS) and a Precedence Count Memory (PCM) are employed which allow multiple instructions to be issued per machine cycle. Additionally, instructions do no have to be issued according to their order in the instruction stream, so that non-sequential instruction issuance occurs. In this system, multiple instruction issuance and non-sequential instruction issuance policies enhance the throughput of processors with multiple functional units."

If that description fits the processors you mention, then you have a point.

Re:2 examples of prior art...

[yfarren]

Actually, when trying to decide if something violates a patent, you look at the Claims. Everything in the description serves to describe the invention. The description is there to give a full accounting of the inverntion, such that one skilled in the art, with only the description, may bring the invention into effect. When trying to decide if something infringes the patent, you have to look at the claim. Ussually the first claim is the broadest, so in this case:

An instruction issuing system for a processor including an execution unit having multiple functional units comprising:

an instruction issuing unit receiving instructions from a memory, operating on instructions and forwarding instructions to said execution unit, said instruction issuing unit including means for detecting the existence of concurrencies in said instructions received from said memory; and

said instruction issuing unit further including means for issuing multiple instructions and non-sequential instructions to said execution unit within a single processor cycle when a concurrency is detected by said means for detecting the existence of concurrencies in said instructions.

Now, if something does that, then it infringes on the patent. Incidentally, if you can find something that does that, BEFORE the date the patent was filed, you can invalidate that claim. That is why there are sub-claims. each sub claim is more specific than the original claim, so that if the top claim gets knocked out, each subsequent claim might still stand.

Re:2 examples of prior art...

[aka-ed]

I understand the abstract doesn't come into play legally, but, for the sake of this argument, the abstract's a tiny bit easier to follow!

Re:He couldnt have invented out of order execution

[dirtyhippie]

Err he did. Perhaps you are thinking of compilers optimizing the order of instructions? That is not what this is about, this is about the actual hardware taking the instructions and reordering them on the fly. If my memory serves, which it usually doesn't, it requires something on the order of 250,000 transistors, so if you are asking why no one thought of this before 1989, it's because we didn't have 3 fucking billion or whatever transistors on each chip back then, so it would have increased the number of transistors by an order of magnitude. Of course, if you ask me, the compiler should do reordering, but what should I know, I got a big fat C in the *only* low level essentially EE (aka architecture) course I had to take - god bless the old-school theoretical computer-scientists-as-wanna-be-mathemeticians attitude at this school!)

-DH

ps - goddamn just about everything else at this school.

Re:no site search?

[dirtyhippie]

Ithaca is a town of about 40,000, down to about 15,000 when school is out like now. Give us a break, we're ghetto, ok? Besides, I find the site-specific search engines suck (and are more trouble than they are worth to implement). Just use google and restrict the domain (click on the "advanced" tab... does it piss anyone else off that "stuff that will screw you up if you are intent on messing with things that you don't understand" is always called "advanced," at least in the windows (and now the web) world?)

-DH

Why is everyone so down on the school?

[Anonymous Coward]

I keep reading: "Why did they wait 7 years?" "Why do they need to get x amount of dollars for this?"

Did you stop to think about it? I'm going to play the devils advocate here and propose a different scenario.. It's already been stated that the university was talking to HP prior to this lawsuit. Maybe your forgetting how long and drawn out legal processes can be. Specially considering the position of a company knowing it uses patented technology illegally.

Also, we don't even know how long they waiting. You all assume that because the lawsuit claims damages from 95 that they've known since then. Who says they didn't find out about all of this until later, as indicated by another poster previous to this one? I'd say if they found out in 1997 and began contact with HP to fix the situation that a few years of talking with them before running to the courts to solve the problem doesn't sound out of this world.

And the sum of money clearly comes from the earnings they would have received from HP if the technology had been properly licensed. Had they been granted a share of the profits for the past 7 years as deserved who knows how much that would really be worth.

Anyway, I don't know that this is the truth any more than the other situations presented, but I'm certainly not jumping to conclusions just yet as I see a lot of self righteous people doing.

Re:no site search?

[Teun]

Even without the "advanced tab", by just including the site name in the search string google works fine.

Cornell is infringing on -my- patent!

[ez76]

I have been putting my socks on before my T-shirt for about 15 years now.

awww cmon

[atari2600]

Dude the serious part was the first two things - how was it licensed and why didnt Cornell complain earlier - the rest was supposed to be funny. Dude i dont know anything about friggin IP law - the IP i know is Internet Protocol and the guy who modded definitely would have understood what i meant. This is friggin /. not the US government JD forum - so give me a break and thanks for the info.

Re:awww cmon

[yfarren]

The point it, it wasnt licenced. If I have a monopoly, you arent allowed to do it. Period. That is what a monopoly is. My monopoly can be invalidated in any number of ways. Lack of proper disclosure. Revelation of prior art. Those two come to immediately to mind. How long I wait to mention to you that I have a patent, is not one of the ways to invalidate my patent. Issued patents are all published. The assumption is, if you do something, you are supposed to make sure it ISN'T patented. If you do it for 10 years, without cheking if it is patneted I can come to you, in 10 years, and say "Hey, that is mine, you have been violating my monopoly, you owe me money." That is a right granted to me, by my monopoly.

Assuming that cornell has a legitamate patent, it doesnt matter why they didnt complain earlier. Further, it doesnt matter whether or not you HARM me by violating my monopoly. It is mine, granted by the govenrment, from the moment of patnent issue. If you are doing something, that I have a patent on, and you dont get a license, you are going to owe me money.

And the statemnt "Dude i dont know anything about friggin IP law " is rather the point of my post. You dont know anything about IP law. Why are making irrelevant proclamations, specifically

"what matters is how the technology was being licensed and why it took so long for Cornell to realise that HP was "stealing" the work done at Cornell",

it wasnt being licenced (read the article) and why it took cornell so long has nothing to do with cornells rights. You werernt being infomative, you were bieng mis-informend, and you have gotten modded up for it. I suppose I am railing as much againt the Moderators as your post. Your post was just not relevant. It says "The point is X" when X has next to nothing to do with the point. Now, if you want to say "Patent law should prescribe people from suing, if they do not aggresivley defend their patents, the way trademark law will invalidate a trademark not aggressivly defended" I guess that would sort of be relevant. But that isnt what you said. You said, "what matters is", and there you are just wrong. It has been that slashdot is a resource for people to learn about stuff. You want to just say something, ok. But I would hope that poeple who are mod-ing will pay attention to how they mod. I mean, seriously, you are at 3 now. When something is modded to 3 I would hope that it knows what it is talking about. And yes, it is slashdot, where people supposedly care about what their rights are and arent. So we should know about them. And not just say silly things. And hopefully not get arbitrarily modded up for saying silly things.

hp - this has happened before

[vvikram]

of course not to this scale perhaps but HP _had_ a patent infringement problem with univ of rochester. click here for the link.

in general however the size of a company like hp [and its associated hpLabs research] the number of patents churned out is ENORMOUS . i interned in hpL palo alto last summer and the patent figures overall for the previous year was many hundreds..... dont have exact figures sorry. i guess this is due to a) the scale of operations involved b) it pays to patent things *just in case* / *making sure* you have the cat in the bag if you know what i mean.

vv

Re:hp - this has happened before

[pmc]

The reason for a lot of these patents "hundreds of patents" is defense (there are other reasons of course). By defense I mean that if they happen to infringe, or even be accused of infringing, a competitors patent then they have some ammo to strike back or muddy the water.

Faced with a protracted and expensive legal battle the companies will more than likely do a deal, as opposed to go to court.

With Cornell, on the other hand, they are not a competitor. Neither are they poor. So countersuing and bleeding them dry - the standard two tactics in such cases - can't work.

It'll be interesting, but I reckon that HP will pay up before court. All Cornell have to lose is some money, but HP could, at worst, lose their product line (if they are violating the patent then they have to stop making the product). Cornell could license the patent to HP, but they don't have to. And I would hate to be a negotiator for HP during any licencing talks if and when they loose their case - talk about a weak position: you can't bluff when the other party knows your cards.

Not totally unprecedented

[ambclams]

How common is it for big universities to get involved in lawsuits like this?

Well, I don't know that I would necessarily say that large lawsuits like this one are common, but most research universities frequently patent their findings, and selling the licensing rights to corporations can be a not-insignificant source of revenue for them. So they've got a pretty serious incentive to enforce these patents.

Offhand, I can think of one instance of this happening. You may recall that back in August MIT filed a lawsuit against Sony for infringing on patents related to digital TV. It was also covered on slashdot, too.

That's the only other specific case that comes to mind at the moment, but I certainly have heard of others. Of course, I'm sure there are many other examples on a much smaller scale that don't get widely reported. And there are undoubtedly many cases that lead to a quiet settlement in which the corporations in question just pay the licensing fees -- which is, after all, presumably what the universities are after in the first place.

Though it's common practice for universities to patent their research, there's plenty of controversy involved, even neglecting the question of whether IP is a valid concept in general. For example, the students involved in actually doing the research usually don't wind up with more than a small fraction of the patent rights, if any at all. And then there's the issue of what kind of rights corporate sponsors get to the research; if the research is funded through government grants, then one also has to ask the question of whether the research then belongs to the taxpayers who are funding it. I see that other posts above have discussed these issues, and they've been discussed extensively here before, too.

Lawsuits like this may be rarely seen with such magnitude and scope -- though I'm sure the $100 million figure the article mentions is just inflated legal hyperbole -- but it's hardly something totally new and unexpected.

Re:Not totally unprecedented

[kawaichan]

Yeah, I think Stanford was going to sue Cisco off because they used some of its technology in their products without their permission

What happened? Cisco got off by providing hardware and service for those techonlogy.

Re:Not totally unprecedented

[john@iastate.edu]

Quoting from http://www.iastate.edu/~isurf/news/news6.html we find that patents are big business for Universities:

A Final Chapter for FAX Algorithm

Earlier this year, the last Type III facsimile machine manufacturer holdout finally agreed to obtain a license from ISURF on this ISU technology. This final settlement brings the total number of licensees of the ISU FAX algorithm to 24 with royalties totaling over $36 million. The patent survived three re-examination challenges at the USPTO and serves to remind us the importance of keeping good research and invention records.

This was a patent the University discovered it had just before it was to expire -- well after fax machines were ubiquitous...

More lawsuits, Target: Microsoft

[sakusha]

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

MIT alleges patent violation; Microsoft, Photoworks named in suit
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstech nology/134387111_mit05.html

Microsoft accused of violating patents
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/53365_paten t05.shtml

Okay, that last one wasn't so on-topic, no universities were involved, but hey, we all love to see Microsoft in deep shit, so what the hell..

Re:More lawsuits, Target: Microsoft

[Lonath]

I don't like MS business practices, but it's never good to see MS getting sued over software patents. Every time they get sued, lose or win, software patents become more entrenched. You can't legally code a nontrivial project without violating at least a few software patents, so why would you support actions that help make coding illegal for anyone outside of a giant corporation? Basically software patents are a way of blackmailing MS. Since those patents can be used to blackmail and destroy smaller projects such as OS/FS projects, I can't support those tactics used to attack MS.

So, I would ask that people never ever support MS getting sued over software patents. The only reason you're not in their position is that you aren't worth the trouble. But you could be. Remember that.

Here's the patent itself

[Anonymous Coward]

Instruction issuing mechanism for processors with multiple functional units

Abstract: An instruction issuing mechanism for boosting throughput of processors with multiple functional units. A Dispatch Stack (DS) and a Precedence Count Memory (PCM) are employed which allow multiple instructions to be issued per machine cycle. Additionally, instructions do no have to be issued according to their order in the instruction stream, so that non-sequential instruction issuance occurs. In this system, multiple instruction issuance and non-sequential instruction issuance policies enhance the throughput of processors with multiple functional units.

It doesn't matter if HP didn't know

[Cardinal Biggles]

Um, one thing that several posters here seem to misunderstand is that using a technique that is patented is an infringement, regardless of whether you knew about it.

A patent holder can block the use of a technology for 20 years, period. It's not like copyright protection where you can reverse engineer the functionality, because the function itself is monopolized and not just one single implementation of it.

That, by the way, is partly why allowing patents on software is such a big mistake.

Re:It doesn't matter if HP didn't know

[Karpe]

Yup, right on there. And you should add that if they had a independent group that made the same discoveries at around the same time, and cannot show any prior art there is no advantadge to them, the patent goes to the first who fills it.

Re:It doesn't matter if HP didn't know

[mikethegeek]

"A patent holder can block the use of a technology for 20 years, period. It's not like copyright protection where you can reverse engineer the functionality, because the function itself is monopolized and not just one single implementation of it.

That, by the way, is partly why allowing patents on software is such a big mistake."

Yep. Because what this does is allow works that should only be allowed copyright protection to get the much stronger patent protection.

In reality, this sort of thing (done more or less by bureaucratic fiat, not really in law) is a bigger triumph for the IP cartels than even the DMCA.

Had we our current IP law/patent climate back in the 1970's, when the computer revolution really took off, VisiCalc, WordStar, et all, would have been PATENTED, and there would have been no competition allowed to them until the mid-late 90's at the earliest..

Or would it have? Every time someone adds a new icon or button or any other function to a program it's a new "original" work. Which is another reason why software patents shouldn't exist, and are WAY outside the scope of patent law as expressed in the Constitution.

Patenting software is as ridiculous as allowing patents on books. Imagine authors getting sued for infringement because entire GENRES are patented?

Re:WTF

[kawaichan]

No matter how crappy you think Itanium is. HP and Intel codeveloped the IA-64. They actually dumped their own RISC processor in favourite of Itanium. Look what they are getting into now...

jeesuz

[atari2600]

you think im reading all that? i got time to do more useful stuff - jeez man relax - i admitted i was ignorant - now i know. Holy Cow i know they rip you off on these boards...well I AM WRONG. I AM WRONG. i am gonna go home and write that 100 times in emacs.

Re:jeesuz

[yfarren]

man I would just copy and paste.

:-P

All good. Sorry to rail at you like that.

Its just you are modded at three. Which is silly. And it happens a lot. People, get moderator points, and just go off and moderate whatever. Cause they can. Without knowing diddly about it. And I feel it brings down the quality of slashdot, and that annoys me. I wish people would pay more attention to what they say, preview before they post, and think for a minute before they mod. Anyhow...

naw

[atari2600]

microsoft mouse - doesnt copy and paste - i am writing now. 89th time - btw i am proud to be modded at 3 - doesnt matter if i dont get the point - now aiming for 4 - need to switch names - hmmm Nintendo_gameBoy :P

More importantly . . .

[acceleriter]

. . . how is it that universities, such as Cornell, which, though private (but a Land Grant college), receives significant Federal funds for its mission and infrastructure (think Title IV financial aid, for example), are even allowed to hold patents to begin with?

I have no problem with an institution being able to hold intellectual "property," so long as they don't take one dime of tax money.

Re:More importantly . . .

[fredbsd]

Excellent.

I didn't know Cornell was in the business of making CPU's.

Having worked in the scientific industry for over ten years, I can attest to the 'morally challenged' ways Universities operate. I was astonished at how ruthless the business 'partnership' departments operate. On more than one occassion were were requested (never did it) to pay all the patent costs (which btw can be quite expensive) and then pay royalties after the fact. All the time the researchers had full (and free) access to our facilities including a machine shop and engineering staff.

More often than not we turned them down. There were some Universities that did operate in a more equitable fashion. In fact, a not-to-be-named-but-very-famous school actually allowed the researcher to accept royalties directly for a product we developed jointly. This gadget ended up being invaluable in a particular research field. There is long and very discouraging story that follows but that is for another time (we didn't patent the gadget as it was an extremely important technique and its benefit to our science was great. Oh well.).

Cornell is just acting like a corporation. Sadly, that is how most places of research are heading. I wonder if the researcher will see any of the 100 million?

-Fred

Re:More importantly . . .

[Registered Coward v2]

. . . how is it that universities, such as Cornell, which, though private (but a Land Grant college), receives significant Federal funds for its mission and infrastructure (think Title IV financial aid, for example), are even allowed to hold patents to begin with?

If you continue your arguement, why should anyone who receives financial aid (such as guaranteed loans) be allowed to patent anything, since they've benefited from federal money as well?

The answer, of course, is that it's their work that creates the idea, and the ability to profit from this is a strong motivator to create things. The government benefits as well, as the recipent of taxes on profits, for example.

In fact, that was part of the idea behind the Land Grant system - to create universities that educate people in practical arts (primarily agricultural and mechanical, hence the A&M in many land grant schools original names, such as Ohio A&M, one of the largest schools in the US), in locations where higher education was not readily available.

I have no problem with an institution being able to hold intellectual "property," so long as they don't take one dime of tax money.

As a side note, the government also owns and licenses IP, for examples you can visit:

http://technology.nasa.gov/license.html

Re:More importantly . . .

[acceleriter]

The answer, of course, is that it's their work that creates the idea, and the ability to profit from this is a strong motivator to create things.

Then that should be sufficient incentive--what public interest is there in funding them with tax dollars? If they want to be a university and accept financial aid, they can be a university. If they want to profit from patents, they can either become a non-tax funded corporation or a non-tax funded university.

I also disagree with the government holding intellectual "property." The taxpayer paid for the property once, already. I know this is routinely gotten around with subterfuges along the lines of "But it's the contractor's intellectual 'property.'"

~~~

Re:More importantly . . .

[Registered Coward v2]

First of all, even corporations receive federal subsidies, in the form of tax deductions or outright grants.

The public interest is in supporting the creation of an educated populace.

Why should the government subsidize individuals (via loans and grants)and let them profit from what they create anymore than universities?

Re:More importantly . . .

[acceleriter]

I see your point, but I don't particularly believe that schools like Cornell are funneling the bucks they get from these side businesses like patent enforcement into education. It's hard to claim educational money from the government is supporting its objective, an educated populace, without limiting its use to education. Cornell, apparently, has money to burn on lawyers.

With regard to "subsidies" for individuals (e.g. home tax deduction, tuition tax credits), let me make a trollish statement here--if you believe a tax deduction is a subsidy, I'll start subsidizing you. Give me 40% of your income. Your subsidy will be that I'll let you keep that 40% of the money you earn that you spend on things like my pet charities which I like you spending your money on. (Weak, I know, but it's a pet peeve.)

Federal grants and guaranteed loans are actually subsidies to higher education institutions, not individuals. They put upward pressure on the price of education (more dollars chasing classroom seats == incentive to soak that money up--look what's been happening to tuition rates, particularly after the Tax Relief Act of '97), rather than increasing access and choice. There was a time when a student could work himself to death to pay his way through a selective private college. Now that's not even theoretically possible for the best schools--you still have to be rich or brilliant, and if you're only brilliant, you'll be borrowing.

Re:More importantly . . .

[fredbsd]

Agreed. It was short sighted. We were very naive back then and thought those who attended the talks were there just to learn about the technique.

We were not that upset with those who copied the products and techniques for commercial gain. It was other scientists who actually tried to patent the various tools that 'got our goat'.

It was a bit annoying to hear various laboratories around the world claiming they pioneered this particular technique when you know damn well they had nothing to do with it. But, science is much different today than it was just ten years ago.

Re:More importantly . . .

[Registered Coward v2]

With regard to "subsidies" for individuals (e.g. home tax deduction, tuition tax credits), let me make a trollish statement here--if you believe a tax deduction is a subsidy, I'll start subsidizing you. Give me 40% of your income. Your subsidy will be that I'll let you keep that 40% of the money you earn that you spend on things like my pet charities which I like you spending your money on. (Weak, I know, but it's a pet peeve.)

Nonetheless, a tax deduction still subsidizes spending choices of the taxpayer by changing the price of certain activities.

Federal grants and guaranteed loans are actually subsidies to higher education institutions, not individuals. They put upward pressure on the price of education (more dollars chasing classroom seats == incentive to soak that money up--look what's been happening to tuition rates, particularly after the Tax Relief Act of '97), rather than increasing access and choice. There was a time when a student could work himself to death to pay his way through a selective private college. Now that's not even theoretically possible for the best schools--you still have to be rich or brilliant, and if you're only brilliant, you'll be borrowing.

Actually, schools are able to price discriminate very effectively since they know exactly what you make and your net worth - so they reduce prices based on what they think you will pay. Loans, even though most of the money goes to the school (you can alos borrow for living expenses), are made available to students at lower rates due to interest subsidies - which directly benefit the student.

At any rate, the student receives a direct price reduction in the cost of education - regardless of whom gets the money.

Re:More importantly . . .

[5KVGhost]

Tax deductions aren't subsidies. They're just allowing the corporation (or individual) to keep something they already have. Income does not belong to the government by default.

Re:More importantly . . .

[3am]

The Engineering college is not publicly funded. AFAIK, only the Human Ecology, Agriculture, and Veterinary (?) school are funded under the Morill land grant.

Re:More importantly . . .

[acceleriter]

The Engineering college is not publicly funded.

So all the students are paying their tuition and fees with no Federal grants or loans? None of the research going on there is being funded by the NSF or any other Federal agency? No portion of Cornell's operating budget derived from public funds pays for any of the Engineering college's infrastructure or personnel? Then I guess I don't have an issue.

The scope of the land grant is interesting information--thanks.

Re:More importantly . . .

[acceleriter]

Actually, schools are able to price discriminate very effectively since they know exactly what you make and your net worth

That's truly a +1, Insightful comment if there ever was one in my book! Now why is it that schools can know their students' and parents' net worth? Why, it's the financial aid application process! So, in addition to the government putting more money into colleges (increasing the cost of education, I proferr), it is providing, through the required financial statements, the information necessary for price discrimination!

Re:More importantly . . .

[Registered Coward v2]

Tax deductions aren't subsidies. They're just allowing the corporation (or individual) to keep something they already have. Income does not belong to the government by default.

Which is also true of university IP - they created it, not the government. IP doesn't belong to the government (and by extension, free for anyone to use) by default either.

No, more like grads snubbed when applying

[ackthpt]

With the growing shortsighted climate of University I.P. I can see HR departments (where your resume is first sent for screening) start keeping a checklist of universities which might sue over I.P. inadvertently employed. i.e. students discuss a technique with peers, like prof. Tong, then head out into the workforce like a carrier of a disease.

"Ah, went to Cornell, nope, can't hire them, we might get sued it they actually contribute to our product design."

So, where do they get students?

"Hello, Beijing University?"

Re:No, more like grads snubbed when applying

[FlowerPotAdmin]

"Ah, went to Cornell, nope, can't hire them, we might get sued it they actually contribute to our product design."

Darn, and I though I actually had a shot at a good job...

Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

Cornell planned to sue Intel as well, but in the the affair was settled with a generous donation by Intel to the university and an Intel Fellowship for Thorng.

(Thorng was my advisor at Cornell).

What amazes me...

[Karpe]

...is that we don't see this kind of thing everyday. I mean, who develops a great amount of new technology? Universities. I would say that they spend much more money on research than companies (granted: many companies pays big dollars to universities to do the research for them, in exchange of the patents). And who is always suing because of patent infringements? Companies.

There is something wrong here. It is the case that there are many more university patents out there, but they don't have the money to sue those who ingringe them, or it's the case that there are more company patents out there, in this case we should ask ourselves why universities are patenting so little. (Ok, one answer is that universities don't patent trivial stuff, while companies do it in order to obtain revenue from licensing and lawsuits instead of really developing products).

In any one of the two cases, there is something fundamentally wrong with this system, and it's not necessary to argue if our patent system is really fair to notice this.

Re:He couldnt have invented out of order execution

[WildTurk]

Just to be clear you can't patent out of order execution (a concept). You can only patent a specific implementation of it.

Yes, this is how it works

[dilute]

There is nothing in the slightest way unusual about this development.

Patent royalties are an important source of funding for universities with strong technological departments. The faculty people who are the inventors on the patents also get to participate very nicely in the revenue stream attributable to their patents. It is a good deal for them.
Universities license these patents all over the place, and sue when they have to in order to enforce them, such as where companies that need licenses (because they are practicing the patented technology) don't want to pay for them.

Stanford has been involved in quite a few of these suits, especially in the biotech area, where the patents are worth a lot because it's necessary to practice them in order to make a important drugs. There are plenty of other examples, including some computer-related ones, such as in the area of video compression.

We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties annually, which means a lot to these institutions. As a method of funding technological research, I think this system has a lot going for it.

Why he waited so long...

[mizhi]

MY question is, and perhaps you can answer this, why did he wait almost 7 YEARS before filing a lawsuit like this? The cynic in me suggests that they waiting until HP used the chip in enough products to warrent a settlement... that's assuming HP violated a patent at all.

Re:Why he waited so long...

[keepper]

Because he prolly was not really sure/aware that they were violating it.

Re:Why he waited so long...

[mizhi]

It stated in the article that he knew about it in 1997. That's 4 years ago. So the question remains.

Re:Why he waited so long...

[xonker]

Perhaps the timing might have something to do with the HP/Compaq merger?

Perhaps the lawyers smelled blood in the water and thought this was a good time to pursue the suit. HP may be more apt to settle to make it go away right now.

Re:Why he waited so long...

[alcibiades]

Most likely he wasn't waiting. They probably only filed suit after license negotiations failed. This is the preferred strategy for getting someone to take a license.

Last week, MIT filed a complaint for infringement of a patent on digital color scanning, listing about a hundred defendants. Their lawyers are going to have a hard time dealing with all the responses!

Re:Why he waited so long...

[mizhi]

That makes sense now... thank you for the input.

Link

[keepper]

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Dec97/Torng.b s.html

For the Lazy.. http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Dec97/Torng.b s.html

loss of revenue, pure and simple

[rtphokie]

Universities (smart ones) make a ton of money off of licensing intellectual property. Cornell may not have much of a case since they waited so long though.

MIT Suing Techs

[alanjstr]

Its common enough, since MIT is suing tech companies over imaging software they've patented.

That might still invalidate it...

[Svartalf]

They could patent the improvement possibly, but not the main idea (which is what this patent seems to cover from a read of the copy...). If that is the case, the IBM prior art does invalidate it.

A shift in the balance of power...

[mcrbids]

OK, So a university professor comes out with [neat idea], and patents it.

He then casually mentions [neat idea] to students... and they learn it, as they are PAYING to do!

Does that mean now that the University OWNS everything that the student can ever do with [neat idea]?

This violates the very founding principle of College education!

I just cannot see how this is right. University money should not be used for this kind of thing!

Re:A shift in the balance of power...

[SteveM]

Does that mean now that the University OWNS everything that the student can ever do with [neat idea]?

It means that the patent owner can determine what is done with that idea for the life of the patent. In this case the university is the patent holder.

This is no different from a company or individual (not associated with a university) patenting an idea and then you reading the patent and using the idea in your product without permission. Why should those associated with universities be unable to patent their ideas?

This violates the very founding principle of College education!

And that principle would be?

One of the good things about the patent process is that it encourages the open sharing of knowledge while at the same time granting the right of exclusivity to the person who developed that knowledge. Contrast this with trade secrets where the knowledge remains secret.

Steve M

Something strange about university patents

[DaveWood]

I'm just thinking big-picture here. I don't know what happened in this particular case, but what flashed into my head as I read the precis for this story was worrisome scenario:

A student learns a technique from a professor. He goes out into the world, uses it for his employer, and then... a year or two on... the employer gets a letter with the two ugliest words in the business ("patent infringement")...

Isn't it a kind of conflict of interest for university professors to be patenting IP that may overlap with their course material? Isn't it an exceptionally likely trap to fall into? We generally assume that what we learn in class is "paid for" by our tuition, but that might not be the case...

MIT is doing the same thing

[jerud]

In the news today MIT is doing the same thing:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-MI T- Lawsuit.html?todaysheadlines

Vacuum tube rennisance?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

With the RCA patent on field emission expiring, and practical long-life field emitters being debugged, we might have the potential for a vacuum tube rennisance.

Vacuum tubes are inherently fast. Electrons travel much faster than holes during conduction, and when traveling across the gap (where the switching takes place) they are making a single free-path hop - similar to the fast N-type FETs (gate shorter than mean-free-path) that are currently being researched.

Use a field-emission cathode and shorten the gap to something comparable to that of a transistor in an integrated circuit and you can use voltages comparable to those of an IC also - but you can also scale up voltage and power arbitrarily at the I/O "pins" without substrate breakover. Meanwhile, at the lower voltages of the internal circuitry you don't have the tip-erosion problem from ion-bombardment.

So there's potential for vacuum integrated circuits on about the same size scale as semiconductor integrated circuits, but made of glass, metal, and diamond. They could run faster than semiconductors, and do a number of other useful tricks to electrons in flight (like "bunching" for microwave amplification) that are impractical in a semiconductor. Vacuum electronics can do many things in one step that can take hundreds or thousands of steps in semiconductors.

Downside is that you don't have complimentary charge conductors, so you don't get a CMOS equivalent. (Unless you use positrons. Maybe that's what Asimov's robot brains were up to. B-) ) So you'll still drop power in resistors (or use inductors to pair up two electron tubes when you don't need the low-frequency/DC end of a signal). But you can let the whole IC get cherry-red with waste heat so that's not a problem in many applications where the power is available.

Vacuum tubes - even low-voltage vacuum ICs - are inherently immune to many harsh environmental factors (like heat and radiation) which give semiconductors heartburn.

Field emission could also give a new lease on life to many conventional vacuum-tube applications. (Tubes are still used in high-power applications at high frequencies - like radio and radar.) It's a drop-in substitute for a heated cathode.

But embed a vacuum-electronic integrated circuit to do the detail work within a cold-emission vacuum power device and you have a bunch of "killer apps". Multiple "tubes" in one vacuum bottle, and even some embedded integrated driver circuitry, had been experimented with. But now we're talking a single vacuum "tube" with a very long life (no burnout - fadeout after many years if ever) with an entere application built in.

Think a wafer-sized cellphone, a bottle-sized cellular base station or broadcast TV transmitter, or putting the whole set of electronics for an airport radar INSIDE the magnetron. Then think "one device with a guaranteed minimum life of decades" rather than "keep replacing burned-out tubes".

Now think about putting these in space probes. (Heck - once it's up you don't even need the vacuum envelope. B-) )

Nope.

[mindstrm]

Firstly, if they knew about it 6 years ago, but said nothing, I believe that will limit what they can claim as damages in court.. but it's not that black and white.
Also, they in no way have to show that HP 'took' the idea from them, that's not how patents work. It doesn't matter if HP came up with it independently.. if Cornell has the patent, that is absolute.
As for 100 million in damages, 'damages'is a loose term. HP should not have used patented technology without paying royalties to Cornell.. which is what cornell is really seeking.

They're doing an Adobe.

[Futurepower(tm)]

Suing HP: $8,000,000 if they win.

Suing other people: Another $4,000,000.

Being known by every prospective student as an organization that sues: Priceless. (Do you want to come from a university that prospective employers know might sue? This is a cost to the university whether or not they win.)

I thought the whole point of a university was to collect people who know more than the average person, for the benefit of the society as a whole. But now, if the university discovers that they may have benefited us, they sue?

The patent claims seem overly broad to me. If you have experience doing assembly language programming, you are certainly aware of the possibilities of out-of-order execution. I was doing what the patent claims long before 1989 -- manually. That is certainly prior art.

When you hand-optimize assembly code, you develop lots of appreciation for cases where re-ordered execution might not function correctly. The claims basically say, "Execute instructions out of their normal order, except where that wouldn't work." So, Columbia has a patent on hard-wiring a processor to run an obvious kind of program.

From the story: Dullea acknowledged that the university is involved in patent litigation with Carl Zeiss Optical, Inc., maker of eyeglass frames, but said the case is "not of this size." Translation: "We are not really an organization that likes to litigate, except..."

From a previous post: The average Cornell prof salary is below corresponding salaries at "peer" institutions and definitely below private industry equivalents. The faculty has been complaining about that for at least twenty years without effect. - son of Cornell professor. The university is NOT planning on sharing any money with students or faculty if they win.

The suit seems to me to be an example of a habitually adversarial kind of thinking that is becoming quite common in the U.S. culture. Remember Adobe and Skylarov, and Adobe's attack on the writer of the Killustrator program? People and societies sometimes arrive at a habitual frame of mind in which they are unable to find creative ways to live in the world without conflict.

The recent terrorism is also an example of this. According to major news sources; the U.S. government caused many of the problems to which the terrorists were reacting: What should be the response to violence?

Re:They're doing an Adobe.

[howardcohen]

The average Cornell prof salary is below corresponding salaries at "peer" institutions ...

Ithaca is an exceedingly cheap place to live. A fine *house* will run you less than a small NY or Boston apartment, so the comparisons are not valid.

Re:ding ding ding ding ding (silly postersubj)

[MindStalker]

Universities are so large, such an assumption would be stupid. That would be like Microsoft refusing the hire any California residence, because it is currently involved with a suit against that state.

It was NOT a student

[beefstu01]

Yes, finally, Ithaca is making news!

There really wasn't much (if any) student code used. It's more archetecture. The man's name on the patent is H.C Thorng, a recently retired professor of CU in the Electrical Engineering department. I actually have a computer that he used, an old HP vectra!

I actually met him- really nice guy. Worked w/ my dad.

GO BIG RED!!!

Re:no site search?

[you cunt]

Google also has ready made search sites for just about every uni you can think of - try http://www.google.com/cornell

Alumni Grants

[BarefootClown]

Looks to me like the law school is getting more than the engineering school...

Re:He couldnt have invented out of order execution

[anonymous loser]

Err he did.Perhaps you are thinking of compilers optimizing the order of instructions? That is not what this is about, this is about the actual hardware taking the instructions and reordering them on the fly. If my memory serves, which it usually doesn't, it requires something on the order of 250,000 transistors, so if you are asking why no one thought of this before 1989, it's because we didn't have 3 fucking billion or whatever transistors on each chip back then, so it would have increased the number of transistors by an order of magnitude.

Err no he didn't. Tomasulo invented the way we do OOE many, many years before there were "3 billion fucking transistors" on a processor (which is still a slight exaggeration even by today's standards). The first machine to employ OOE was the IBM 360/91. Here are some pictures of the first (that I know of) 360/91 in operation in 1968 at NASA. Even though the machine was (by 1968's standards) blazingly fast, the 360/91 failed miserably and only a few were actually produced. The reason this machine failed was because it was incapable of handling interrupts properly. The 360/91 only supported imprecise interrupts, which meant that instructions causing the interrupt as well as subsequent instructions could continue to execute if they were already in the pipeline. This is generally not a Good Thing(tm).

I don't know where all of the Cornell students seem to get the impression that Torng invented OOE. Hopefully this is not from Torng himself, as anyone who studies modern processor design can tell you the first thing you learn about with OOE is the Tomaluso algorithm, which although it was invented over 30 years ago is still used in modern processors largely unchanged from the original design. This is not to say that Torng had no role. He did in fact substantially facilitate OOE, by devising a system to allow mutliple instructions to issue simultaneously (as his patent claims). Torng himself pays homage to Tomasulo in the patent, referencing his paper from 1967.

Not without effect

[Aquitaine]

There was something in the area of a 4.x% tuition hike for those of us (un)fortunate enough to be a part of Cornell University. Part of this money went to professors, who, despite making less than peers at other instuttions, still make more than anyone else in the area. The cost of living in Ithaca, NY is prohibitively low, such that they can get away with paying people with masters degrees in CS and IT $30-$40 for senior positions. The professors make a bundle, but the staff/employees do not; I've worked with them for 4 years now (I am a student) and the one thing I've heard from professors is 'We get paid plenty' and the one thing I've heard from Employees is 'I am going somewhere where they will pay me.'

Not that professors don't deserve a hefty salary, considering how difficult it is to land a real teaching (not just lecturing) post at a place like that.

University of Rochester

[3Suns]

This was pretty big news last year when the University of Rochester filed the largest patent lawsuit in US history against Pfizer and Searle for infringement of their Cox-2 inhibitor (Celebrex, super-aspirin) patent.

Re:Another suit by a university

[Shadowin]

For some reason you have a space in the URL. How about you just format the thing? Click here for the story.

Re:Copyright infringement? OT: evil modders

[aka-ed]

I am using my +1 bonus here to point out to the majority of fair-minded and level-headed moderators the exchange to which I now reply.

Note that we have a supposed "moderator" posting anonymously about why he modded somebody down, in a pompous and heavy-handed manner, including a spelling flame.

I noted this guy's own spelling mistake in his spelling flame, and justifiably accused him of crack-smoking.

Now, I stand modded for "flamebait" while the crack-smoker hides in a cloak of anonymity, yet stands ready to spring out of hiding and maul us with his mod-points. I can't even tag him as a "foe."

Foul!, I cry!

Will this injustice stand????

Will this post send good points after bad?

Ladies and gentlemen of slashdot, the decision lays in your hands. Don't let the crack-smokers get away with this!!!

That's why they call them...

[SkulkCU]

That's why they call them the Cayuga Waiters

Re:He couldnt have invented out of order execution

[harlows_monkeys]

Of course, if you ask me, the compiler should do reordering, but what should I know[...]

The CPU is working with the instructions that are actually executed. The compiler is working with instructions that might be executed. This should let the CPU do some optimizations that the compiler cannot. On the other hand, the compiler has more time to work on the problem than the CPU, so there should be some optimizations that the compiler can do better.

Seems to me that this means that both the compiler and the CPU should be doing this.

University Patent Revenue

[yaje]

I don't know about the situation in general, but Indiana University's chemistry department receives (or, at one point did receive) a substantial amount of money from royalties on the patent for fluoridated water. That patent goes way bad, at least to the '50s. So there's definately a precident for this sort of thing.

I find these claims doubtful

[markj02]

You can find the patent here. I find both the patent and the claims that Torng invented OOE kind of dubious. The idea of out-of-order execution goes back to at least the 1960s and has cropped up in several different areas of computer science. It may not have been applied much to microprocessors because until the late 1980s, it wasn't all that practical, and EEs are often unfamiliar with ideas in CS anyway. Overall, at least at first glance, this patent looks to me like so many recent patents where people patent ideas that have been around for a long time but simply hadn't been used in practice for practical reasons. Note that Torng has no prior patents in processor design, so it doesn't look like he had been inventing in the field much before then.

I certainly wouldn't assume outright that HP wilfully infringed this patent--HP may well have legitimate reasons to believe that this idea is in the public domain by now. The courts will have to work that out.

(BTW, the guy's name is "Torng"; shouldn't you know the name of your professor?)

also: teaching requires freedom

[markj02]

In addition, teaching involves research, and if university research ends up being proprietary, there are horrendous conflicts of interest that greatly interfere with the academic functions of the university. In order to be able to carry out the business of teaching, university research must be in the public domain, as it has traditionally been.

Schools steal sh*t from the students, that's ok...

[superpulpsicle]

Corporations stealing sh*t from the students is a no no??? Explain that.

Guess they don't need my money

[Phil Karn]

I am a Cornell grad, and in fact H.C. Torng was my undergraduate advisor for much of that time.

I guess the next time somebody from Cornell calls asking for money, I'll have to say that they obviously don't need mine given how much they have lying around to throw at lawyers instead of teaching facilities.

Phil

Q: Will they share the money?

[Futurepower(tm)]

The question is not whether the Columbia administration is paying the professors a lot of money. The question is whether, if they have money, they will share it with the teaching staff? I don't know the answer to this, but the previous poster indicated the answer was no.

It is relevant that the costs near the university are low only if the tuition is also low. Since this is not the case, it indicates the university administration does not share money with the teaching staff.

This relates to the original story because it shows more fully the overall personality of the university administration.

Re:He couldnt have invented out of order execution

[3am]

you lamer... just because you don't have what it takes to do well CS314, you blame the school.

i got a C- in it, but have some self respect and take the blame for yourself.

-a mathematician from cornell.

Universities spawn(ed) much big business

[kriebz]

Have we forgotten what the names SUN and BSD stand for anyway? And there are plenty more without cute names. Whole research projects, one time departments, turned into franchises or empires. Forgive their capitalist little hearts, but bright students want to make money.